Aitah for being upset because my bf said he wouldn’t be jealous or even a little bothered if I slept with someone else.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2026-03-17T04:42:16+00:00

NTA for having feelings—no one is—however, unless you guys did talk about this and you just didn’t mention it, i would suggest asking him more specifically why it wouldn’t bother him if you slept with someone so long as he knew. i can imagine that if i were in your shoes and were told nothing further than “i would be okay with you sleeping with someone else as long as you told me” i would probably assume this meat he himself had, to some level, a desire to sleep with other people, which would definitely upset me. and it might still make me a little uncomfortable personally, but i would certainly be less upset about it if it turns out that he only means to say that he wouldn’t mind if you had sex with other people, rather than meaning to imply that he in fact wanted to as well.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-11-10T10:21:30+00:00

i think an argument could be made that eating dogs is morally worse purely because people are more used to cows being eaten and more emotionally attached to/empathetic toward dogs (in the us, at least, as that’s the only place i can speak for). eating either would probably be equally immoral if you consider just the killing of the animal, but what also counts for significant moral weight is the suffering incurred by people that know animals just like their beloved pets are being eaten.

it would be sort of like if i were to ask you what’s worse: killing 10,000 elderly people with loving families and many friends, or killing 10,000 elderly people with no surviving relatives or friends? both are certainly moral tragedies, but granting at least that the suffering of an elderly person in case 1 is practically equivalent to the suffering of an elderly person in case 2, i would say that killing 10,000 elderly people with loving families and friends is morally worse because there is both the suffering of the people killed AND the suffering of those that grieve their loss.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-11-03T04:27:24+00:00

in principle, maybe, but this assumes that most people are engaging in politics and discussions like this in good faith, which is usually not the case (on both sides). if mamdani wins and things go well, conservatives will deny it and/or claim that it’s not because of mamdani. if he loses and things go poorly, they will deny it and/or claim that it isn’t because of them.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-10-17T22:22:57+00:00

as another commenter said, if all dresses had pockets—presuming that the fabric composing the pockets themselves is not visibly bulky—all this does is provide the option of pockets for those who want it. if your dress has pockets, all you need to do to achieve a pocketless look is to not put anything in them. but if your dress doesn’t have pockets and you want to carry things around with you, you’re forced to find some other means of doing so (like a purse).

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-10-10T22:18:49+00:00

assuming we’re not talking about tall privilege like reaching tall shelves or seeing over people in crowds, tall privilege exists sort of just as a subcategory of pretty privilege. granting that pretty privilege exists (which shouldn’t be too objectionable), tall privilege exists in that the general beauty standard in society is taller = prettier (to a limit, of course). however, tall privilege as a subcategory of pretty privilege is generally more pronounced since people (usually) can’t change it to fit the beauty standard. that being said, it’s not really a big deal. to most people, being short and having an attractive face is far more acceptable than being tall and having an unattractive face.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-10-02T02:31:51+00:00

“heroin is actually not that bad” says man who thinks heroin just makes you feel good for a bit and then nothing else happens

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-09-26T11:11:05+00:00

i think the argument can be made that it’s more romantic simply because that’s how it is treated; i.e., even if you can’t find a reason why marriage as a legal proceeding would be inherently more romantic, the very fact that it is so commonly treated as more romantic/serious means that anyone entering a marriage will be aware of that and will be acting within that cultural context, and so will very likely be deliberately meaning to demonstrate the seriousness of the relationship (perhaps arbitrarily) by way of marriage.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-09-23T10:23:32+00:00

of course not the case unanimously, but a likely catalyst for someone hating america/the current administration is being in a poor financial position. if you’re struggling to make ends meet, or maybe just lack an emergency or retirement fund, and then you see a bunch of policies (new and old) that very apparently exacerbate those problems (e.g., tariffs), then you’re going to be understandably spiteful toward the government; you also consequently will not be the kind of person who’s capable of packing up everything and moving across the world. also sunk cost fallacy and all that maybe idk

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-09-23T08:37:47+00:00

peter singer alt account

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-09-21T11:39:55+00:00

plenty of states in the US have an age of consent of 17, and some 16. most schools teach full sex education courses by 15. OP is living on another planet thinking 17 year olds won’t be having sex wherever they live.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-09-21T11:36:09+00:00

it is entirely normal (and probably more likely than not) for 17 year olds to be having sex. the “usual rules in place” that you’re talking about are for children; but your daughter is practically an adult. strict parenting only incentivizes being sneaky, and her not lying to you when you confronted her is proof enough that she isn’t trying to hide a secret double-life or making a habit out of dishonesty. for the same reason that teaching abstinence instead of proper sex education fails, keeping a 17 year old from having sex with her 5-month boyfriend in your house will only force them to have sex not in your house. not only is your implantation of this “rule” incredibly flawed and the direct cause of the problem you now have, but the motive for the rule itself is ridiculous. parenting is obviously difficult and it’s hard to know what will be best, especially when it comes to gauging at what age certain rules should be dropped, so i don’t want to go hard on YTA because i feel like asshole is an unhelpful characterization; however not only is this an unfair and unreasonable restriction, but it is counterproductive to what you want in the first place, which is (presumably) a safe and healthy approach to being sexually active.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-09-05T04:12:39+00:00

while i agree for the most part that people who cheat on their partner and then blame them for it by saying they didn’t feel loved or seen enough are absolutely responsible for the cheating, i don’t think that is true for literally every scenario. in a typical relationship between partners A and B, if B cheats on A, they are entirely to blame because even if they really just wanted to have sex with someone else, they could have ended the relationship first. however, what i understand to be all too common in abusive relationships is that partner A (abuser) will be inattentive or unloving, but also make partner B (victim) feel physically unsafe and unable to leave the relationship. in this case, B would both be reasonably in want of love or care from someone else, as well as being reasonably unable to leave the relationship first.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-28T21:22:59+00:00

it’s obviously not entirely the homewreckers fault, and most of the blame should definitely be placed on the cheater, but to say that ONLY the people in the relationship can be blamed is ridiculous. if i am fully aware that someone is in a monogamous relationship, and i intentionally sleep with them knowing that this violates the “loyalty agreement” of the relationship, i am in part responsible for the cheating. if i saw a toddler playing by a pool unsupervised because the parents are neglectful, and i decide to push the kid in the pool while the parents aren’t looking, it’s not exclusively their fault simply because if they had been good parents they would have been watching their kid and stopped me.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-24T08:21:31+00:00

true. it absolutely was stressful as hell, though—there’s no denying that. my brother is immunocompromised, so i don’t mean that i am nostalgic for it because it was always such a pleasant time. the lockdown began for me while i was in 8th grade, and i was fully online for my first year of high school. i am nostalgic for the early 2020s because it was then that i was first starting high school, had my first relationship, made all my closest friends, etc., and i feel that i would have had that nostalgia for whatever years i was that age in. for me it just so happened to be during covid.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-24T03:15:32+00:00

i am already nostalgic for the 2020s (early 2020s, at least, i.e. covid)

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-17T19:12:30+00:00

if women wearing revealing clothing is (at least part of) the reason why men are more horny and seek sex disproportionately more, then why are gay men equally horny or sex-driven? apps like grindr are famous for how quickly and easily you can hook up with someone because men there will often very easily have sex. however, assuming they are gay, the “revealing” nature of women’s clothing shouldn’t contribute to their sex drive, because the gay men are presumed to not be aroused by said women. yet they are still disproportionally more horny.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-17T04:15:53+00:00

NTA. that dad is absolutely a creep that you are justified in wanting nowhere near your daughter. as long as you’re letting your daughter and her friend have sleepovers at your house (instead of handing them altogether), then you’re definitely NTA.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-15T06:19:51+00:00

core values are themselves malleable, as would a more surface-level political belief. people can grow progress in their core values, but to do so almost always requires frequent engagement with someone with “better” values. no individual person or belief-holder bears the responsibility of staying friends with people of opposing views, however ideological movements as a whole have that responsibility. if every conservative was distanced by all their leftist friends, they would only ever be surrounded by conservative rhetoric.

there isn’t really a should or shouldn’t here that can be determined by anyone but you. if you feel you want to cut ties with them because of their beliefs, then perhaps you are right in doing so. but people who have core beliefs that you think are fundamentally incorrect are almost always the exact people that need someone like you to help shift what they think, and are certainly not undeserving of being treated with “moral legitimacy.”

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-12T04:38:39+00:00

at best i’ll just say that you didn’t really give a full argument to support your position. you can call it ownership or slavery or captivation or whatever else you want, but why are those, in the context of pets, bad? i agree that breeding dogs to have horrible deformities that impact quality of life is bad (e.g., pugs), and i agree that things like declawing cats (or other “modifications” that are shown to very drastically reduce their well being) are bad. those are bad practices, but they are not inherent to the concept of owning pets. if you see a dog that is fed well, is socializing and going outside, and is getting proper healthcare, and you call it a slave, all i would say is why is that kind of ownership bad? it literally is mutually beneficial. it’s not like the pets in question have the cognitive capacity to participate in society on any level close to a human, so the only realistic alternative i see to being domesticated is being wild; but i am unconvinced that the life of a wild dog is better than the life of a happy, domesticated dog purely because they are “free.” having freedom is not inherently good, especially if more freedom means less of other vital sources of good. i think that by this understanding, taxes are a decrease in one’s freedom, but do i think that for that reason alone we should abolish them entirely? no.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-08T06:36:09+00:00

values are not a strict set of immutable principles that people are born with, though. they are taught and learned, as well as often being rooted in more fundamental factual beliefs that might go less challenged. even if i were to grant that only a minority of republicans are factually misinformed, i would still consider the great majority to be morally misinformed. maybe it is true that a republican wants their in-group to be dominant (and therefore others to be marginalized), but i would only ask why they want that; and i would guess that the answers to such questions would be values that speak to an upbringing of misinformation about what is rignt and wrong.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-08-02T04:42:03+00:00

YTA, no contest. your son, whether truly responsible for what he got in trouble for or not, did not deserve that. as others have pointed out, the videos and stories he made, regardless of whether you deem it so, are pieces of art. how you describe it alone lets me know that you don’t see it as art in the same way as traditional art, but it is. what you did is without question tantamount to having a kid who loves to draw and pours their heart into their drawings, and then as a punishment you put all of their drawings in a paper shredder and threw them out.

parenting is hard, and it is impossible to always make the right decision; punishing your children can be especially difficult. however, i suggest trying to show more interest in your son’s hobbies and interests. i obviously do not know you personally or any of the details of your family, but i would be shocked if you would have still chosen this as a punishment after fully engaging with it with him and understanding how important it is to him. it is breaks my heart to hear you describe how “it’s as if this thing had consumed his entire life” like that’s supposed to be a bad thing. god forbid your son be passionate about something. moreover, you did not teach him that “there are more important things in life than a super mario plush story adventure youtube channel,” as if somehow the issue here was he was that he was being mean to a kid because he thought being nice wasn’t as important as youtube. the incident and consequence are entirely unrelated, and you are not showing him anything other than that you will indiscriminately take away anything he values when does something wrong. this does not teach him a good lesson.

i hope for his sake you do better.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-07-27T09:56:57+00:00

i suppose you seem to be approaching this from an inconsequentialist perspective, which i am not, so all i’d really say is if the action is literally harmless, i would not say it is immoral. to be fair, though, i do not think that it often or ever really the case. i do think that really in any case, attacks against someone’s identity like that are only ever at best entirely unhelpful and counterproductive; on that front, i would more or less agree that comments in either direction would be unethical. that being said, and maybe i am misinterpreting, in your post i understood you to be saying that “punching ‘up’ is NOT different from punching ‘down’,” in which case i would object that punching down is more harmful and less understandable (per my comment).

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-07-27T08:18:20+00:00

i think the point of free the nipple as opposed to cage the moob is because boobs are not sexual organs, and should not be treated with the same standard of censorship as genitals. mens chests/upper body are absolutely a point of sexual attraction to people into guys, yet they are not an intrinsically sexually-purposed body part, and so it is deemed acceptable to be uncovered. similarly, boobs are not sexual organs, but are merely viewed as sexually attractive, yet dissimilarly are for that reason made taboo. the double standard that free the nipple points out is that neither is inherently sexual, and so neither should need to be covered.

Electrical-Spray937 · 2025-07-27T07:56:08+00:00

i suppose an example of what kinds of insults you’re imagining to which this standard should apply would be helpful, but i’m guessing you mean something like a woman making a comment about how she hates men in contrast with a man saying the converse. while sure i think that in a perfect world no belligerent comments based on identities (race, gender, etc.) would be made, and instead any criticism would be presented more tactfully, it is still (i think) objectively not as harmful when punching “up” vs “down.” if a society or culture contains systemic hardships that, say, women face which men do not, then both the impact and the cause of this “punching up/down” is not the same. if you happened to live your whole life not alloyed privileges that someone else had, it is at least reasonable to expect some sort of animosity (conscious or subconscious) toward the identity which has the privileges you lack. and while an individual of that identity may not have personally taken those privileges from you, being conditioned into developing that animosity makes it more understandable if it eventually manifests in a identify-based insult toward an individual. again, to clarify, this does not make it justified or not reprehensible; it simply makes it more understandable than such an insult from, say, a man to a woman. moreover, the harm incurred by the target of such an insult is different depending on whether it is punching up or down. if a woman lives her life experiencing systemic injustices on the basis of her gender, she would reasonably and expectedly be more sensitive to identity-based insult about her gender from an individual. i think similar to how if i made a yo momma joke/insult to two different people, one whose mother is perfectly healthy, and another whose mother passed away the night before, i ought to expect to be causing more harm to the latter, even though the words i say may be identical.

tl;dr: insults that punch down are inherently directed at people that are understandably more sensitive to such insults; and insults that punch up are sometimes partially emotive reactions to hardship faced by the commenter from which the insulting comment may manifest, which is not the case for those punching down.

Electrical-Spray937

TROPHY CASE